Comments on: That 2012 logo http://randominactivity.com/2007/06/11/that-2012-logo/ Better than your average technology blog... Sun, 10 Apr 2011 04:50:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Kenny http://randominactivity.com/2007/06/11/that-2012-logo/comment-page-1/#comment-77 Kenny Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:19:39 +0000 http://randominactivity.com/2007/06/11/that-2012-logo/#comment-77 I agree that the 'I could do better' response is puerile and that £400k is remarkably little to spend on a brand of this importance (perhaps that's part of the problem). I also accept that what I find aesthetically pleasing might not be consistent with the aims of the 2012 committee. But I can't help but feel that in the desire to be 'edgy' enough to appeal to the youth of 2007, the importance of inclusiveness has been forgotten. If an Olympic Games is about anything, it's about reaching out to everyone in society and communicating a set of ideals. The logo fails spectacularly to do that. On another note, there's a very neat demonstration of the identity design process in <a target="new" href="http://www.rohdesign.com/weblog/archives/002280.html" rel="nofollow">Mike Rohde's blog</a>, where he talks about the logo he designed for <a target="new" href="http://paulstamatiou.com/2007/06/07/new-logo-new-design/" rel="nofollow">Paul Stamatiou</a>. I agree that the ‘I could do better’ response is puerile and that £400k is remarkably little to spend on a brand of this importance (perhaps that’s part of the problem).

I also accept that what I find aesthetically pleasing might not be consistent with the aims of the 2012 committee. But I can’t help but feel that in the desire to be ‘edgy’ enough to appeal to the youth of 2007, the importance of inclusiveness has been forgotten. If an Olympic Games is about anything, it’s about reaching out to everyone in society and communicating a set of ideals. The logo fails spectacularly to do that.

On another note, there’s a very neat demonstration of the identity design process in Mike Rohde’s blog, where he talks about the logo he designed for Paul Stamatiou.

]]> By: Christopher Phin http://randominactivity.com/2007/06/11/that-2012-logo/comment-page-1/#comment-76 Christopher Phin Mon, 11 Jun 2007 20:35:11 +0000 http://randominactivity.com/2007/06/11/that-2012-logo/#comment-76 I hated the logo too when I first saw it, and it still jars when I see it. Part of that, though, is a learned response: recent Olympic logos have tended towards anodyne swooshes and inoffensive primary colours. But I am not arguing that the mousy approach is worse or better than the ballsy one. It may well be that this is a terrible, terrible logo, and one of the major contributing factors to that is one that you and others have identified; that a logo supposed to unite a people has in fact divided them (albeit into two very unequal sized chunks). The thing I object to is silly little people opening up Paint, scrawling a few lines, and saying that they've done the same thing as the designers of the Olympic logo. Bollocks. A single logo does not equate an entire corporate identity system, nor has it been tested in different media. (And I accept unreservedly the legitimacy of concerns over strobing lights prompting fitting.) It fair buggers the mind to think that people seriously devalue the process of design so much that they think £400k is a preposterous sum of money to spend on developing an identity system; it's a complex dance, and it frustrates me no end that people see A Logo and think that's the job done right there. Gah. I shouldn't care so much. As a designer friend once said: disengage... I hated the logo too when I first saw it, and it still jars when I see it. Part of that, though, is a learned response: recent Olympic logos have tended towards anodyne swooshes and inoffensive primary colours. But I am not arguing that the mousy approach is worse or better than the ballsy one. It may well be that this is a terrible, terrible logo, and one of the major contributing factors to that is one that you and others have identified; that a logo supposed to unite a people has in fact divided them (albeit into two very unequal sized chunks).

The thing I object to is silly little people opening up Paint, scrawling a few lines, and saying that they’ve done the same thing as the designers of the Olympic logo. Bollocks. A single logo does not equate an entire corporate identity system, nor has it been tested in different media. (And I accept unreservedly the legitimacy of concerns over strobing lights prompting fitting.)

It fair buggers the mind to think that people seriously devalue the process of design so much that they think £400k is a preposterous sum of money to spend on developing an identity system; it’s a complex dance, and it frustrates me no end that people see A Logo and think that’s the job done right there.

Gah. I shouldn’t care so much. As a designer friend once said: disengage…

]]>